Hear me discuss Amazon Studios on the Broken Projector podcast

I really should have linked to this sooner considering that posts about Amazon Studios tend to be among my most-viewed.  This week, I had the honor of being the guest on Scott Beggs and Geoff LaTulippe's podcast Broken Projector.  Screenwriter Justin Marks also joined the conversation as we weighed the pros and cons of Amazon Studios' new venture into producing 14 pilots and then crowdsourcing the development of those pilots.

You can find the embedded post here.

You can download it directly here.

You can subscribe via iTunes here.

Broken Projector is one of my favorite podcasts, so it was a great pleasure to be invited on the show.  If you love movies, this is a podcast you need to be listening to every week.  As a bonus, you now know the proper "voice" to hear in your head as you read Geoff LaTulippe's tweets.

Tuesday Talkback: Does Amazon Studios have any idea what it's doing?

Long-time readers probably remember I took great exception to the original mission of Amazon Studios, which seemed to be attempting one of the most egregious exploitations of amateur writers that I'd ever seen attempted.  Beyond that issue, I had the distinct impression that the people behind the then-new venture had little understanding of the industry they were attempting to "revolutionize."  While it would be improper to go into any great detail about some off-the-record encounters I had with those behind the scenes, I will say that nothing I learned through any channel - both official and unofficial - dissuaded me from that feeling.

But as Amazon Studios seemed to give up on their attempts to seize rights to all the amateur scripts willing to dive into its maw, I found less motivation to focus on their dealings.  The rules for those amateur submissions seemed less draconian, and more importantly, they seemingly did a pretty thorough job of alienating most amateurs by so clearly focusing on projects from established writers.

And yet, even after two and a half years and all those changes to the program, I still feel like the guys in charage are way too naive about the TV and film business.  What makes me say that?  Quotes like this from Amazon Studios director Roy Price:

TV Guide Magazine: Why did you cast and produce these pilots during network pilot season, when competition for talent is fierce? 

Price: That was not intentional. That's just the way it worked out. I guess if we had really planned it by the calendar then maybe going off cycle would have been a good idea. Maybe we'll try that in the future.

Did Price just admit they didn't put a lot of thought into the timing of their venture? They they were completely ignorant they were competing with network pilot season? That would be like failing to realize that you accidentally scheduled your Great Britain Appreciation party for the Fourth of July!  You can't have more than 12 months of experience in this business and NOT have an appreciation for how all-consuming pilot season is.

It would be one thing if they made a deliberate decision to go head-to-head with the big boys. (I don't know WHY they would, but at least it would be an informed choice.)  Price's phrasing indicates that they're only focused on their venture and not accounting for it's position relative to the rest of the ecosystem they inhabit.

That's... troubling.

Addendum - 1:00am PST: Just to toss this into the mix too - compare Amazon Studios foray into streaming programming with Netflix's.  Netflix brought in people like Kevin Spacey, David Fincher and Eli Roth - creators with strong visions.  Those are guys used to having creative control and all indications are that Netflix gave them fairly close to a free reign in developing their shows.  Meanwhile, Amazon's method is more along the lines of test-marketing and focus-grouping the hell out of their pilots.

Netflix = few-to-no notes.
Amazon Studios = mountain of notes.

Which one seems more conducive to the creative process?  Which one would you rather be working under when you ascended to the rank of show-runner?

So what do you guys think? 

Why every aspiring writer should be excited about Black List 3.0

I'll say this for Franklin Leonard, he doesn't do anything small.

The Black List creator has just announced a new feature to the Black List website, dubbed Black List 3.0.  Just last week, membership to the Black List website was made free for all industry pros.  Currently the site has a tracking board of sorts, where those industry pros are able to rate scripts that are listed within the database.  (The scripts themselves are not stored, just the identifying information like title, writer, representation, attachments and so on.)

But the big move has come this week.  Starting soon, non-pros will be able to pay a fee to make their scripts available on the Black List site.  For an additional fee, the script can be covered by trusted industry readers, who will then evaluate and rate the script.  Thus, if I upload my spec BIG ROOSTERS & SOAKED KITTENS and pay both fees, the following will happen:

First, a Black List approved reader will read the entire script and rate it according to the sites metrics.  As expected the coverage will also detail the genre/s and most likely the budget of the script.  Then, that information will be made available in the database for as long as I pay the monthly fee.

(And let's be realistic, the fees are necessary if any industry readers worth their salt are going to take their time to read these submissions.  It's just simple economics - if you want quality gatekeepers, they're going to need to have some compensation for their time.)

So let's say the Black List writer really liked my low-to-mid budget comedy and gave it a score that averaged out to 8.5 out of 10.  Every member who searches for a script with those parameters will have access to my script, my coverage and my contact information.  So for the price of a late submission to a prestigious contest, I could end up with a script request from a major company or two.  Or ten.

And here's where the real brilliance of Mr. Leonard's scheme comes in.  The Black List is a brand that everyone in town knows.  It is perhaps the most coveted insider list and it's spawned more than a few imitators.  People trust the Black List... and Mr. Leonard just made access to the site completely free for them.  At present, I'm told there are over 1,100 industry pros signed up as members.

I don't care how many tracking boards most development people are already signed up for.  If something like this is free, they're gonna sign up for it, if only to have the inside track on the next Black List.  By doing this, it practically guarantees that The Black List will have a higher quality of clientele than something like InkTip.

Granted, InkTip is a little cheaper at $60 for six months, but there all you're posting is the logline.  At BL 3.0, there's a gatekeeper there who's going to play town crier for anything worth while.

This also solves the problem with Triggerstreet.  Over there, users can post their scripts for free... but they're only being read and rated by other community members.  Thus, there's less of a chance those readers will have the same discerning tastes as readers who work within the industry and in a worst case scenario, it could be the blind leading the blind.

And then there's Amazon Studios.  Look, you all know what I think of the site by now.  I think Black List 3.0 totally demolishes Amazon in every fashion.  Sure, Amazon was also free... but at the cost of giving them a temporary exclusive option and the right to buy the script for a predetermined price.  Plus, does anyone think Amazon's actually going to get a feature film released?

With the Black List, you're getting your material in front of people who've actually made real movies before - not dilettantes who were fixated on producing test films.  You own the script, you (or your representation) has full ability to negotiate the sale.  The Black List doesn't gloom onto your work at all.  They don't option it, they don't attach themselves as producers.  Their involvement goes only as far as making the introduction possible.  (They're basically going "Oprah, Uma.  Uma, Oprah.")

And let's talk contests and fellowships.  As we've talked about before, most contests are probably going to run you between $40-$75.  In most of those cases, that's just the fee to enter.  You rarely get coverage or anything else.  We've also mentioned that there are few contests that are really strong at jump-starting careers.  It's my supposition that you'll probably have access to more real industry insiders through The Black List than through most contest submissions.  Even if the cost for a month of posting is a little more than a contest submission, the potential benefit far outweighs that.

And then let's not forget the coverage/scouting services that evaluate your script and promise to pass it to their contacts if it's deemed good enough.  Coverage from ScriptShark will run you $149. Script Pipeline charges $350.  And then there's a lone reader out there who's currently charging $1000 a read.  (The cherry on top of that is that he also is trying to be a manager and a producer.  No one should ever have to pay either of those sorts of professionals for a read, as that's stepping into some very murky ethical territory.)

So if you're one of the people who would pay to enter a contest, or who would pay those huge fees just for coverage and the barest promise of "access," you should be jumping for joy about Black List 3.0.  It seems like a good idea on it's own, but when you put it in context with all the other "breaking into Hollywood" services there are, this has the potential to be a clear winner.

It's basically a Voltron of everything good about Triggerstreet, InkTip, Amazon Studios and most contests, with very little of the most derided aspects of those services.


I saw a lot of negativity about this venture last month when details started leaking out on Deadline.  That disappoints me for a lot of reasons, chiefly because I think this is unquestionably one of the best opportunities to come along for aspiring writers in a long time.  I see a lot of potential here and a lot of opportunity.  But opportunism?  No, I don't feel that at all.

I don't know Franklin well.  I've only met him a couple of times and have mostly communicated now and then via email and Twitter.  I can say that he's struck me as an incredibly intelligent and above board professional and I'm truly convinced he has the best of intentions with this site.

But I know that there will be a lot of questions about this, so I've reached out to Franklin Leonard and I'll be posting an EXCLUSIVE video interview with him tomorrow!  (That's right - that means the creator of the Black List is going to submit to questioning by a puppet!) Spread the word and come back tomorrow to see me interrogate Franklin about Black List 3.0

Related:

Go Into The Story: New Black List Feature for aspiring writers
Amanda Pendolino: The Black List Launches services for aspiring writers
The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
Screenwriter Geoff LaTulippe with "My Thoughts on the Black List Project"

Still drinking the Amazon Studios Kool-Aid? Time for some sobering realities

I feel I should respond to some statements made by Antony on yesterday's post.  In comments he  quotes me:

Finally, " let's not forget that the terms of the Amazon Contest make this 100% legal. As much as this behavior might disgust you or I, this is Amazon Studios working the way it was designed to work. Allow THAT to send a cold chill up your spine."

 -- umm, so writers submit work to a company, and the company abides by the terms of the agreement and there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest they are going to rip off the writers in monetary terms, but that is somehow chilling?

Yes, it's chilling. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's not a bad idea for writers to participate. And as I pointed out in the portion you quoted, it's entirely possible under the terms of the original agreement for a writer who submitted back in December 2010 to have had their work held hostage up until now with nothing more than $10,000 paid out.

Admittedly, I don't know how the grandfather clause might work for materials submitted under the new agreement, but renewed under the new one. However, either way, it's clear the writers are legally entitled to remuneration for Amazon to hold their script, and Amazon's own blog confirms they received $10,000 as part of the development slate.

The chilling part is that Amazon Studios pitched themselves to all of the aspiring screenwriters who were desperate to break in. Everyone who put their script up there had dreams of their script, THEIR vision being made into a movie. I don't think anyone signed up to have their script held in limbo for two year, their underlying premise bought at a fraction of the prize money dangled for a "winning script," have the project announced without their names associated with it in any way, and then see industry veterans brought in to claim all the credit.

That's not the dream that had AS devotees drinking the Kool-Aid for the last 18 months. But it's not at all a violation of the rules either. And that's what I mean by "chilling."  That Amazon is totally within their rights to pull a Lucy Van Pelt - spiking the football for Charlie Brown to kick, and then pull it away at the last second.

The other thing about Amazon Studios that concerns me is how there was a lot of hype about their first test film THE NEVSKY PROSPECT while it was in production, only to have it vanish into thin air.  As I indicated yesterday, it seems like the sort of thing that could have really embarassed the shingle if anyone who mattered was paying attention.

I'm going to lay out the timeline of events as bluntly as possible, and I invite any intrepid reporters to take this background information and run with it.  Much of this information comes either directly from Amazon Studios, or the production blog of the test film itself.

Fact: In April 2011, THE NEVSKY PROSPECT is one of the winning entries in the monthly contest.  As such, the screenwriting team collects $20,000.
Source

Fact: In September 2011, Amazon Studios announces they are "working with established filmmakers, animators and others to produce three additional test movies," including THE NEVSKY PROSPECT.
Source

Fact: Amazon announces key production personnel for THE NEVSKY PROSPECT. The director was USC grad Rajeev Dassani.
Source

Fact: Professional actors were hired under a SAG New Media agreement. 
Source

Fact: Under the SAG New Media rules, eligible projects are "Independently produced original, made for new media (MFNM) entertainment productions that will initially be exhibited via the Internet, mobile devices or any other platform known or which may be adopted but excluding motion pictures, commercials, and video games covered by the Basic Agreement, Television Agreement, the SAG Industrial/Educational Agreement, the SAG Infomercials Agreement, SAG Interactive Agreement or the SAG Commercials Contract."  (emphasis added.)
Source

Fact: The film was greenlit on August 9.
Source

Fact: the film began shooting in mid-October. Day 3 in Latvia was Wednesday October 19.
Source


Fact: Mid-November, the film finishes on schedule after 22 days of production.
Source

Fact: Upon returning to L.A., there was one week to edit prior to first test screening.
Source

Fact: Director tweets on November 29th that first assembly is complete.
Source

Fact: Post-Production is completed on January 10.
Source

Fact: Film was delivered to Amazon on time.
Source

Fact: In Late January, the Movie goes online at Amazon.com
Source

Fact: At some point after the movie goes live, it is removed from Amazon's site. A message at the link reads: Video currently unavailable. Due to our licensing agreements this video is currently not available for purchase or rental."
Source

Fact: February 7 - Deadline article is posted containing details of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT's production.
Source

Fact: Screening planned for Latvia after mid-April.
Source

My questions:
In order to qualify for the SAG New Media Agreement, the project couldn't be a motion picture.  Also, if it was a motion picture, Amazon would then owe the script's writer the $200,000 purchase price.  Having outlined the each step of this production, does it seem right to you that Amazon can just declare this film to be a "test film" and thus, sidestep numerous obligations it would otherwise have to pay?  What determines when a project stops being a "test film" and becomes a real film?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  So why isn't THE NEVSKY PROSPECT a film?  Why can I find no announcement that the script was purchased for $200,000?

Why is THE NEVSKY PROSPECT "test film" no longer available online?

And though I don't wish to delve into the specifics of the writer's complaints, why is the original writer of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT so bitter and disgruntled with Amazon Studios?

Folks, do me a favor.  Link to this article.  Tweet it and discuss it on your own blogs.  I want this post high in Google searches for Amazon Studios so that when the time comes, journalists doing background work on the shingle will find this easily organized account of THE NEVSKY PROSPECT.

All of this is out there, but no one's drawing attention to it.  Should Amazon Studios ever have reason to trumpet the accomplishment of completing Zombies v. Gladiators, I'd like to see these valid questions cling to them like a wet T-shirt.

Taking all of this in total, I don't understand anyone who believes that Amazon Studios is or has ever been a great venue for screenwriters to get discovered and launch their careers.  Is there anyone who isn't the least bit wary of this history?  These first few writers are the guinea pigs, and where Amazon should be making a spectacle of how awesome it is for them, all they seem to provoke is a lot of uncomfortable questions.

Why the Zombies v. Gladiators announcement should make every writer wary of Amazon Studios

As I tweeted yesterday, Amazon Studios has announced that horror writer/director Clive Barker has signed on to rewrite and direct Zombies v. Gladiators.  A script that has been festering in what passes for "development" over there for quite some time.

There are a number of things with this release that concern me.  I and a few other screenwriters have noted that Amazon Studios' press release does not ONCE mention the writers who originated the project Gregg Ostrin & Michael Weiss.  (Their names are equally absent in stories running in each of the four major industry trade sites.  So much for "reporting.")  In fact, I can't find any sort of press release from Amazon Studios that announces they've actually purchased the script from the writers!

I read this script for work in late 2010 (and it was NOT suitable for consideration at the company where I read at the time.) The AS page for the script shows that it was uploaded to the site in December of that year.  This means that the script is outside the 18-month "free option" period.  However, the old rules did allow Amazon to renew that option at the price or $10,000 and retain the script for another 18-months.  I'm going to assume that's what happened here.

The script never won the monthly or yearly contest, so under Amazon's rules, they didn't have to pay out the $200,000 figure they named as the purchase price for the screenplay.

I reiterate, these are the facts, and they are not in dispute.

A reader calling himself "Dr. Nevsky" has kept a close watch on the contest and sent me a helpful email that, if nothing else, should provoke some thoughts.

The two original authors submitted the ZvG script out to all of the studios in 2009, as at least one of them is repped. All the studios passed. They entered it into the Amazon Studios contest where it never won any prize. Then, all of a sudden Amazon announces that they want the unwashed masses to take a crack at a rewrite of the script and they announced that the script was in development at Comic Con last year. 

Amazon gave vague ideas of what they wanted, and several writers did a full, page one rewrite, which was needed, and Amazon ignored those rewrites and awareded the prize to the writer Lauri who's ZvG revision involved curing the zombies of their, umm, being dead, with arrows dipped in human tears, or some shit like that. 

It was said that Amazon themselves tried to make a test movie but were having problems with the third act (there wasn't a third act, it sucked.) So apparently Amazon realized that the ZvG project wasn't working in any of its iterations and obviously they decided they liked the ZvG CONCEPT, but not the original script, or any of the rewrites. 

But here's the shitty thing. Lauri got paid at least $10,000 for her rewrite. Clive Barker is probably going to get at least $500,000, if not a million for rewriting ZvG. But the original authors have gotten ZERO DOLLARS. 

So, in the end, if Amazon somehow decides that Clive Barker sucks and they abandon the ZvG project, everyone would have gotten paid EXCEPT the original writers. 

It has been said that the original authors should be happy as they're now going to "get meetings with studios" because their script sucked so much that the thirty odd people who entered the rewrite contest, and even the winning entry couldn't fix the script, and then Clive Barker had to be brought in to rewrite the entire thing. 

Sounds like a great promotion tool for the authors and Amazon. "My script sucked so much that every Hollywood studio passed on it, but then Amazon liked it and hired Clive Barker to rewrite it totally!" 

One could argue that Amazon is simply trying something different and thoroughly testing out an idea before they go forward and spend the big bucks on production. But once again it is also strange that Amazon has hired Oscar-level producers to produce a script that Amazon doesn't even own, but only have an option. 

Sure, lower level productions do this sort of juggle all of the time, but it's usually with a producer optioning a script while they try to go and find money for the movie. But Amazon HAS the money, they just dont want to spend it on the writer. One has to ask if the scripts they currently have "in development" are so worthy of development, then why doesn't Amazon just simply buy the damn things from the writers and then say "C-ya," especially if it's obvious that pro writers are going to be brought in to rewrite the script? 

I also have to wonder what would happen if the produced Zombies v. Gladiators ends up bearing no resemblance to the submitted script beyond the title.  Obviously there's a paper trail a mile long showing that Amazon Studios had access to the original material.  But if nothing of that remains, would the mere inspiration of a broad concept be enough to allow the original writers to sue, should Amazon Studios decide to produce their own version without cooperation?

And what does that mean if someone appropriates the basic idea of another failed Amazon screenplay? It's not like you can copyright an idea, just the particular expression of that idea.

I'm not a lawyer.  I can't answer that for sure, but it does give me pause.  If Disney hears that Dreamworks is making a movie about an asteroid heading to Earth and they decide to make their own asteroid movie, could Dreamworks sue Disney?

This is the kind of thing that gives me pause about Amazon Studios.  I can't find anything to contradict the underlying facts that Dr. Nevsky lays out, and many of the conclusions he draws don't seem that unreasonable to me.


True, the absence of a purchase announcement isn't necessarily proof that Ostrin & Weiss haven't been paid, but I'd think Amazon would have made an announcement.  If nothing else, it would give them a reason to keep their name in the news. They don't have to cut the writers a check until December 2012 - which gives Amazon six months to see if they can get this thing off the ground with Clive Barker.  And if they don't, that $5,000 each will have to satisfy the two writers.


But let's not forget that the terms of the Amazon Contest make this 100% legal.  As much as this behavior might disgust you or I, this is Amazon Studios working the way it was designed to work. 

Allow THAT to send a cold chill up your spine.

Tuesday Talkback - Amazon Studios: are you more likely or less likely to join?

Yesterday's post on Amazon Studios has already become my all-time third most popular post, so clearly there's a lot of interest in the topic.  Most curious of all is that there are absolutely no comments on this post.  I get that there's a lot to digest there, so why not just start with this simple discussion point.

Do the changes in Amazon Studios make you:

1) make you more likely to submit a script?
2) make you less likely to sumbit a script?
3) have no impact on your prior opinion?

I'm going with #3.  Had these been the terms of the program when they first emerged, I might have believed that this was a great opportunity.  However, the initial conditions of the contest were so wrong-headed and betrayed such a naivete about the business, that I have no confidence in those running the program.  I don't think the people at the top understand or respect the creative process.  I think they displayed astounding arrogance, both in thinking their early policies were in any way appealing and later in taking so long to correct course long after the feedback was drastically negative.

The odds of any such program finding even one brilliant script are incredibly long.  If you don't believe me, ask Trigger Street, which has been taking open submissions for years.  The peer review process has yet to find a script that even made it into production, much less a success.  Furthermore, even if Amazon Studios managed to find a single, or even two solid, well-written, commercial projects, it wouldn't "revolutionize the industry" as so many of its Kool-Aid drinkers believe.

At best, Amazon Studios would become a second tier avenue for projects, a mini-independent shingle.  And frankly, I don't see them finding the material to make that viable, nor do I think their executives show signs of being anything other than dilettantes.

So that's why I'm going with #3.  I grant that the contest terms are no longer the abomination they once were, but I have no faith in those steering the boat and I have no interest in putting even some of my dead ideas into their hands.

If you want to submit your scripts, be my guest.  But don't delude yourself into thinking you're on the front lines of a film revolution.  Even if you're the next F. Scott Frazier (four specs sold in two years), there aren't nearly enough GOOD undiscovered writers out there to give Amazon Studios the foothold it needs to remake the industry.

The Auditorz of the Amazon weigh in on Amazon Studios' changes

Several times last year, I tackled the subject of Amazon Studios, a new venture that sold itself as being a gateway for aspiring writers to break into Hollywood.  For a more in-depth recap of what Amazon Studios announced itself to be, and my reaction to the same, go here.  Long story short, it smelled hinky to me.  It reeked of scam and I felt that their terms were going to end up taking advantage of a lot of desperate aspiring writers.

Another blog called The Auditorz of the Amazon took it as a calling to dissect every facet of the contest.  They not only took a look at the rules, they theorized what Amazon's motives where, uncovered what appeared to be suspicious and unethical game play on the part of entrants, and audited all of the finalist scripts each month.  The long and the short of it was: the quality of submissions was pretty poor, and the quantity of submissions was rapidly dropping.  It was fairly fascinating stuff, and I admired their dedication. 

The Auditorz abruptly went underground last summer, and in an interesting twist, it seemed to kill all conversation about Amazon Studios.  Without their arch foe keeping conversation about the contest alive, AS just plain fell off the map.  Even the winning scripts were announced without much fanfare. 

Last week, Amazon Studios announced some major changes to its program.  And I found myself wishing that the Auditorz were still around to do one of their incisive posts on what these changes mean.  I lamented that there was no way to see their reaction to this drastic shift in direction

Guess what?  The Auditorz contacted me this weekend - and provided me with a guest post that covered precisely that.  What follows is their submission, unaltered, and may not necessarily reflect my own opinions:

Well, after much conjecture and four months of waiting, Amazon Studios relaunched Thursday with absolutely no press, or fanfare.  There's no more "All your base belong to us" rules, or million dollar prize, but what there is instead is an ACTUAL opportunity for screenwriters.  Are there any "catches"?  Yes, nothing in life is free.   But at least this time around the rules are actually very favorable to the writers and not a repeat of the extremely unfavorable rules from the original contest.

What's gone:

Test movies.*

Screenplay contests*

Million Dollar Prize

Semi-finalists

Finalists

User generated test movies are (thankfully) for the most part gone.  Previously users had to guess the projects A.S. was interested in, or simply try to make their own project and HOPED Amazon liked it.  There are rumors that A.S. is going to fund -some- test films later but those details are still rumors at this point.

The monthly contests AND the million dollar prize are both gone, baby, gone.   This is great because it shifts Amazon from contest based crazy-town to an actual studio development environment.

Screenplay contests are now "Opportunities" and are much more focused this year.

What's new:

Screenplay "Opportunities"
Trailer Contests
PRIVATE submissions
45 day option
$10,000 cash money option up front (18 months)
$33,000 rewrite opportunities

The screenplay opportunities come in two flavors: Assignments and Original Ideas.  If you want to submit your original screenplay idea you can submit it either OPEN, or PRIVATE.  If you submit it open, you really don't gain much and stand to lose a lot.  Open means that any boob (like me) can come along and review your script and run it into the ground and give you "bad press."  However, reviews (supposedly) will NOT affect the internal Amazon Studios rating of your script.

And yes, someone could come along and steal your title/idea/story if it's out in the open, most of the open submissions for the A.S. development process are already looking identical to last years.  Here's a winner that was just submitted an hour ago.  It's called "MILIFARY,"  Another recent upload is "Spidletop" which has the author flipping the bird as the cover page.

Yes, in fairness, there are a lot of crazies out there, and all Amazon Studios (open) submission system has done is brought that to light. But from what I've been told, EVERY script gets read. Even stuff like "Defib: A Christmas Tale" http://studios.amazon.com/scripts/5674 A story about A prototype defibrillator that uses her warped programming to keep a struggling military academy open and off the radar of the man she fled. Yes, the story is about a sentient Defib machine.

There also isn't much of an audience for screenplays, or much of a community left on Amazon Studios, and to be honest, there really doesn't need to be with the new rules.

But the two big disadvantages to the OPEN/PUBLIC process is that A.S. can immediately make a test film of your script AND you also give them the COMIC BOOK RIGHTS for them to make a comic book.  Now I seriously doubt they'll make an ACTUAL comic book, but this provision/addendum was probably added simply so they could make "motion comics" and didn't want any rights loopholes, especially if they planned to drop $50,000+ on a motion comic.

Now I know what you're thinking, "Well, Amazon Studios did pretty good with that 'Nevsky Prospect" test movie, it looked really great!"   Well, they didn't do so good on the "Touching Blue" test movie.  It looked like "Dick Tracy and "Kim Possible" mixed together, and not in a good way. But really, unless you direct your own script with your own money, you're never going to see your own vision up there on the big, or small screen.

So that means that if anyone's interested in submitting they really should choose...

PRIVATE submissions:  Private submissions mean that nobody sees the project except Amazon.  So if you have a hot idea/script you obviously don't want it blurted out all over the internet, so this new way of submitting actually ENCOURAGES much BETTER writers to submit this time around.  Writers can submit their BEST material, instead of trunk scripts this time.

By submitting to Amazon Studios you grant them a 45 day review period.  If after the 45 day period they're not interested then you can simply remove your script.  NO rights are encumbered.  No hanging chads this time around.

IF they're interested then they can option your script for 18 months.  They will pay you $10,000 for the option which can be renewed twice (for a total of 36 months).  If they don't buy your script during the (36 month maximum length) option, the rights revert back to you.

Once under option the script goes into the "Development Slate" where Amazon Studios can rewrite the script, host rewrite contests, make comics/motion comics, trailers and test movies of the script.  Obviously, once the script hits the development slate it's open for the public to see as well, automatic inclusion in the rewrite contests, test movies, everything.

This is truly the only (possible) fly in the ointment.  A writer with a super hot idea/screenplay would probably do better shopping it around town first if they can.  Mainly because Amazon could option the script and then focus group it to death, greenlighting a movie well after the script's "sell by date."  Granted, this could happen with ANY studio, but at least if your script is super hot you might get a lot of money UP FRONT via a direct purchase, instead of just ten grand.

But if you're a writer living in West Union, West Virginia, Amazon is still a very good alternative.  Mostly all of the studios are like "F-U, don't send us your shitty screenplay, we'll pee on it and then send it back to you unopened."

If Amazon Studios purchases the script you get paid $200,000 with a $400,000 bonus if the film does over $60 million domestic box office.  The real kicker in this instance is that if you wrote a movie that somehow did $60 million domestic box office, a $400,000 bonus may seem like chump change, but the real payoff would be the amount of money you would get for your subsequent screenplay; obviously with a different "real" Hollywood studio.  I would image you would probably get a good rep and a manager as well.  Heck, you might even get an assignment or two from Warner Bros. which is Amazon Studios' producing partner.

Now here's something really good:

There is no scenario where someone can claim any of your rights money by revising your original script or movie via Amazon Studios.If someone creates a revised version of an original script, they may be eligible to receive a share of any contest winnings. But rights payments are not shared. If a theatrical movie is released from an original script on Amazon Studios, the creator of the original script or movie gets 100% of the rights payments. People who are revising scripts or making video content (like trailers) based on scripts are going for award money and are helping someone else get their movie made. But they are not sharing in the rights money. 

But I know what most of you WGA writers are saying to yourself, "Pffft!  I'm a luminary WGA writer and can't participate in such non-union baffoonery!!"

Well, now you can!

AMAZON STUDIOS PRODUCTION ARM (The People's Production Company) IS NOW A WGA SIGNATORY!!!

What is The People's Production Company? "The People's Production Company is the production arm of Amazon Studios. The People's Production Company is a signatory to the Writers Guild of America Minimum Basic Agreement, while the Amazon Studios site is not. So, if you are a WGA member, we encourage you to have your agent contact the People's Production Company directly in order to submit your original script or to apply for paid writing assignments." Also new is the $33,000 rewrite opportunities.

The GREAT thing about these new opportunities is that you don't have to rewrite the whole script, trying to guess and figure out what Amazon was looking for and hoping you were right.  This was another BIG problem with the rewrite contests during the first year.  Nobody knew what Amazon wanted, not even Amazon!  People did page one rewrites on one project only for Amazon to choose a punch up.  Another project the inverse happened.

Now you submit a proposal first and then if you're selected you get $10,000 up front and $23,000 on delivery.  In this economy I'm certain will see a lot of WGA writers writing "below their weight" to get what they think is going to be an easy $33,000 dollars.  This is actually fine by me as I love competition and real competition only makes things better.

As for the two rewrite opportunities up for grabs, I'd say "I think my Facebook Friend is Dead" is the more viable of the two projects up for grabs.  The million dollar winner from last year, "12 Princesses," is completely devoid of a story.  Good musical numbers, no story.  So it's really a page one rewrite.  So if you've got a good kids story you can shoehorn into "12 Princesses" then go right ahead.  If not, go for "Facebook Friend is Dead."

Another plus is that if you somehow get shared credit, or even sole credit (with a page one rewrite), then you can get a $100,000 bonus, or $200,000 bonus respectively. Keep in mind Amazon Studios is the sole decider of who gets credit, and I can only assume that this "bonus" will be more readily applied to WGA writers who sneak in through the PPC backdoor, seeing that (I assume) A.S. would have to adhere to the WGA rules.

* Subject to the terms of the writing services agreement, Amazon Studios intends to pay those writer(s) or team(s) as follows:

* USD $10,000 upon commencement of a rewrite, and an additional USD $23,000 when we accept the fully completed draft screenplay from that writer or team. The writer or writing team will have ten weeks to complete the draft screenplay from the date of commencement.

* If we commence principal photography on a full-length motion picture based on the screenplay for commercial theatrical distribution (which, for clarity, does not include test screenings to test audience response), and if, upon final determination of writing credits, the writer or team receives screenplay credit, the writer or team will receive a one-time bonus in the amount described below. If the writer or team receives shared screenplay credit, the one-time bonus will be USD $100,000. If the writer or team receives sole screenplay credit, the one-time bonus will be USD $200,000.

*If you're WGA and have some questions about how things would work through the Amazon PPC, ask your union rep and/or agent.

* Remember, regardless of what Amazon Studios pays the rewriter(s), the original author still gets FULL payment of $200,000. As an example, lets say that I rewrite "Facebook Friend" and Amazon loves it, and puts it into production AND pays me a $200,000 because my page one rewrite was so awesome. The original author still gets their full $200,000 as well. HOWEVER, I as the rewriter, would not get any further bonuses like the performance bonus of $400,000. BUT, once again, if my name is on a $60,000,000 domestic-grossing film as a writer, I'm going to be compensated by getting better offers on my future scripts.

Lastly, it appears that Amazon is shifting towards trailers to present ideas for projects instead of making whole test movies.  This is a more novel approach as the general public really doesn't have time to sit through an hour and a half long precursor to a movie.  A trailer could easily be used to gauge the public's interest in a project before large sums of money are dedicated to even test film production.

Overall, I was Amazon Studios biggest fan and biggest detractor last year.  My blustery hoopla on my old "Auditorz of the Amazon" site, the only site on the net that covered the contest from day one, had a lot of biting satire and humor, but also a lot of never-ending suggestions to make the contest and Amazon Studios better.  In the end, Amazon Studios did listen to myself, as well as the people that contributed to the "Auditorz" site, even following most of the suggestions to the tee, so I'm happy about that; we did make a difference in the end. 

This paradigm shift in Amazon Studios really does finally open some doors for the struggling writer (and director).  If you previously wrote off Amazon Studios, I can't stress enough that things have changed for the better.  Whereas A.S. 1.0 felt more like an episode of "Survivor," there is actual opportunity in Amazon Studios 2.0. And from what I hear, Amazon Studios is looking to get into "television" later on this year, which is also yet another opportunity.

Reader question - What about "appropriating" someone else's failed screenplay idea/script?

The Auditors of the Amazon commented yesterday with a question that probably deserves some discussion.

What about "appropriating" someone else's failed screenplay idea/script?

We've been contacted by a lot of people lured into that Zombies Vs. Gladiators rewrite contest. Like us, they see the massive problems with the script, a script that went out to the studios, and has already been passed on.

It's actually easier to do a page one, total, and absolute new rewrite than to try and fix ZvG.

However, it appears that Amazon Studios doesn't think that there's much to fix with the script, so we think that anyone that would submit a page one rewrite to the contest would be at a disadvantage.

So, what about taking the BRAAAAIINSSSS behind ZvG and changing everything? The names, characters, places, times, plot, story, everything, and then writing an entirely new script and submitting it to the studios?

Scott Mullen (a fellow reader) said that this would be immoral. We don't think morals and ethics enter into it if it's totally different.

Let's say a ZvG page one rewrite is really good, and somehow gets back to the studios who declined/passed on a previous iteration (by different authors), could ZvG sell without legal troubles?

There's a legal question and a moral question before the court here. Scott's probably right that you're on slippery moral turf. In a case like this, if it wasn't for the initial script, you never would have generated your idea in the first place. Still, time and again, writers are told that it's the execution of ideas that are copyright-able, not the initial idea itself.

With something like Zombies vs. Gladiators, suppose you just heard the title and went, "That's a pretty cool idea! I know what I'd do with that." Then, without ever reading the script, you go off and develop your version of it. Obviously, you couldn't have stolen anything from the script because you didn't read it. The original writers might sue you, but unless they could point to specific details that could only have come from a reading of their script, odds are they'd lose.

As I've said, I'm not a lawyer, but that's my best guess at how this would shake out in court. A full page-one rewrite of the concept with a completely different plot, characters, and setting probably would be on safe ground legally. Legally.

Ah, but then comes the moral question.

I'm a struggling writer. After years of trying, I break through and get representation and lo and behold, my manager takes a look at my Zombies vs. Gladiators script (aka "Dawn of the Dead meets 300") and declares that it's perfect for Zack Snyder to produce. And guess what, Snyder's development people agree. I send them the script. I go in for a meeting. We rap. They pass. It's "not for them." They "liked it but didn't love it." I get no money, and move on to other projects.

One year later, I see a trailer for "Zack Snyder presents 'Zombies vs. Gladiators.'"

Should I have a case? Doesn't it seem like Snyder's people owe me something?

That's why in cases like this, usually you'll see the company buy the spec even if all they want is the concept. They'll get a few rewrites out of the writers, and then probably pay another writer or four to takeover and rewrite the project completely. Why do they do that? Because it's cheaper and less of a hassle to buy the script outright than deal with the legal question later. After all, circumstances like that look mighty fishy, and you never know what a judge or jury would do with a scenario that grey.

Now, the scenario you posit is a bit different, in that instead of Snyder's Director of Development initiating the new idea, you have come up with this Page One rewrite entirely on your own. I'd say that probably puts the legal burden on you rather than the studios. (But again, I'm NOT A LAWYER.) So if your question is, "Does the fact that another iteration of this idea already went wide to studios present an obstacle for this one?" I'd say only as far as the first pass indicates that they might not be interested in the idea.

Try this scenario: I'm telling a friend about my idea for a new screenplay. Maybe I've come up with a cool new comedic hook like, "It's about a woman dealing with her best friend getting married and having to put up with her raunchy bridesmaids while doing her duties as maid of honor." While I write my version, he goes off and writes his. As it turns out, the plots and the tone of both scripts is distinctly different. He writes from the school of Apatow while I wrote from the school of Wilder.

His sells, mine doesn't. Can I sue him? Probably not... but he's probably just a tiny bit of a dick for coming up with a competing idea, no matter how much he might legally be in the right.

Thus, I don't really endorse this. I have enough trouble when I mention an idea to a writer friend and then have to worry if his role in brainstorming a few ideas means he's going to think I "stole" the idea if I write it without him. As you might guess, I see a dozen badly-executed scripts a week - and every now and then there's one that has a great premise, but is never going to get bought because it's so badly written. I really can't see appropriating that idea because to me, that would feel too much like theft.

Message board morons and "Is Hollywood Dead?"

Journey the internet and you'll find no shortage of unqualified idiots spouting off in knowledgeable-sounding phrases about how they totally know exactly how the entertainment industry works. These know-it-alls are easily identifiable not because they offer some analysis of where the industry is, but because they almost always claim absolute certainty about where the business is going. "_______ is the future of the industry!" they say.

Nevermind that few of these people have ever even gotten coffee for someone in the business, let alone held a job in it. But why let a think like lack of first-hand knowledge stop you as long as you read US Weekly and all the comments on Deadline.

Seriously - there are people out there who not only believe that an Edsel like Amazon Studios is the future, but they're ill-informed to believe that "test movies" are the future of the industry. Right. Their line of logic is that the best way to sell a movie is to produce a cheaply-made version of the film - screen this rough draft for audiences, and then use that feedback to determine if it's worth producing the final film.

Right... the studios are going to trust the fate of a multimillion dollar property to a pre-vis feature that is some combination of storyboards, anamatics and dialogue voice-over for two hours. No finished effect, likely no big stars, and none of the polish. Wow.... sounds almost as fun for the audience as jury duty. Where do they sign up for this "honor?" Can I see the storyboard versions of Bridesmaids 2 and One Day?

If my opinion bothers you, don't worry. I'm sure right now there's some uninformed boob typing a post about how I'm only writing this post because I'm running scared from all the changes that "the great unwashed" will bring to Hollywood. That my dissent exists only as part of an elitist conspiracy to keep outsiders out, and that any moronic business practices on Amazon Studios part is less of a concern than the fact that I apparently have something against people who expect instant screenwriting careers as a result of having typed 120-some pages in semi-accurate format.

Anyway, one of my fellow bloggers, the great Bill Martell, has weighed in on the fallacy of the message board proclamations that Hollywood is dead. But instead of hyperbole, he brings facts that show that anyone readying the death certificate for Hollywood is acting prematurely.

2009 broke box office records at the cinemas, and *ticket sales* increased as well. It was a record year for cinema ticket sales - more butts in seats than in any recent previous year. Meanwhile, home entertainment (from Hollywood) took a nosedive. 2010 sold fewer tickets and made less money - but was ahead of 2009 as far as money was concerned until mid-December. The problem seemed to be there was no huge Holiday movie - TRON: LEGACY was no AVATAR... and all of the second tier films also did much less business. Hey, that was good for the Coen Brothers - TRUE GRIT is their first real hit! But that happened because there was no “mainstream” hit movie to go to. This year began slow, but box office rebounded to record levels in April. With $791 million, April of 2011 was the top-grossing April ever and was up five percent from April last year. And with 101 million tickets sold, April 2011 was the third highest-attended April in history. And it didn’t stop there - we just had the highest-grossing Memorial Day weekend of all time at $277 million... and summer has just begun!

Hollywood is giving people the movies they want, even if they may not be the movies that *you* want to see. The major mistake in the theory that good films will force out the bad is the definitions of “good” and “bad”. I have a Script Tip on the two kinds of good - there is “critical good” and “entertainment good” - and when people have been working all week and want to just escape their crappy lives for two hours, most of them are not interested in movies that are challenging and intellectual - they just want to be entertained. When some critic says that FAST FIVE is a good movie if you just check your brain at the door, they mean it is well made entertainment... and that’s what most people want to see when they buy their tickets. They just want to be transported into some fantasy world where their problems do not exist. Sure, there are some people who *do* want to be challenged and *do* want to think... but that is a small percentage of the audience - a niche. If you fill the cinemas with “more intelligent films”, more people will not be watching them.

Check out the rest of the post here.

Amazon Studios - How desperate do you have to be to take a bad deal?

This weekend, I commented on a post regarding Amazon Studios over at Scott Myers' excellent blog Go Into The Story. It was an open call for questions to one of their representatives, and I, taking the tone of a hostile cross-examining attorney, posted several pointed questions that more or less jumped off from my own issues with Amazon.

Very quickly I was attacked by another poster who made incredibly off-base statements and misrepresented in my position in what appears to be an effort to hop onto an anti-Hollywood soapbox and use this tirade to attack the Hollywood establishment, at the same time presenting my view as saying that since I was against Amazon Studios, I was apparently against everything BUT the traditional method. He accused me of telling him to "shut up and let the pros do it."

Most comically of all, this poster then proceeded to validate my central thesis, stating "Yes, the Amazon deal is bad. But if you're in Podunk without a shot, it's A deal!"

As I took him to task for misrepresenting me, than attacking me personally based on those misrepresentations, it occurred to me that this screed wasn't about me at all - he was just looking for a fight with someone who was anti-Amazon. However, in doing so, he gave me a window into the mindset of someone who might be tempted by Amazon's magic beans - so let's dispense with those arguments one-by-one, shall we?

"A bad deal is still A deal, so why shouldn't I sign? If Amazon is screwing writers, then let them sue or go public with the injustice" - Let me tell you a story about musician Billy Joel. In the early 70s, Billy signed a deal with label owner Artie Ripp. This was a ten-record deal, but among its stipulations was that Ripp made a huge chunk of the money, while Billy himself got very little money from the sales of his albums.

I'm sure at the time, Billy's attitude was, "Hey, I've got nothing. This is all hypothetical money anyway, so why not sign? At least it's a deal."

In an unbelievable error, Ripp's people accidentally mastered Billy's first album at the wrong speed, making Billy sound like the lead singer of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Outraged, Billy refused to work for Ripp but couldn't get out of his contract. So he fled to L.A. and played in piano bars for six months until he was fortunate enough to get Columbia Records to buy out his contract with Ripp... except that Ripp would get 25-cent royalty per album on all of Joel's first ten albums. Ripp made millions for doing very little than releasing a sub-par album and getting lucky enough to sign a desperate artist to a very bad deal.

When The Stranger became one of Columbia Records best-selling albums, that deal meant that Billy himself didn't become a millionaire off of it, while a lot of people around him did. But hey, at least he got A deal, right?

It's one thing to use a lawsuit to seek legal redress when you didn't know any better, but is it really smart to drop your own pants, bend over and lube up for your violator under the certainty you'll be able to make him pay later?

"It's time Hollywood did something different from franchise pics, superhero movies and all high-concept all the time. We need fresh ideas!" - And opening the door to outsiders via Amazon fixes this how? The decision makers at the top are still the same people. No one from Podunk is going to get to play studio executive and that's where the real power lies in setting the slate. We see these genre pics, superhero films and high-concept scripts because that is what the studios are buying. That is where they are making their investments. It's not like there are a lot of writers out here with a passion to go from Transformers V to GoBots: Resurrection to Battleship. These newbie screenwriters are going to have to deal with the same marching orders from executive.

If Amazon is irrelevant why is everyone making such a fuss about it? All the pros speaking out against Amazon seem to be "protesting too much?" I think they're running scared because it's a threat to the system. They know they'll lose their jobs to all of these writers from the outside. - If you honestly think that any professional screenwriter is legitimately terrified that their jobs are in jeopardy from ventures like Amazon Studios, then you are deluding yourself. I've spent years reading scripts from the sorts of writers submitting to Amazon Studios and while stating this is going to piss off some readers, it's the truth:

Most of them aren't that good.

Everything I've railed about in this blog, I've seen time and again from newbie writers. I bet that if I went over to Amazon Studios and read several scripts, I'd come away with enough material to validate two-dozen posts and produce an additional dozen new ones.

Did American Idol send Mariah, Christina, and Bono quaking in their boots about how these "discoveries" would nab all the record deals? If the Eagles held open tryouts next season, would Michael Vick spend one moment thinking that an outside discovery would steal his spot on the team?

It strikes me that aspiring screenwriters are far more adversarial to professional screenwriters than actual working screenwriters are towards other working pros - and those people are their direct competition!

Outsiders act as if any idiot could write a screenplay and these "morons" getting paid millions for putting words to paper are just lucky enough to know someone on the inside. That's all it takes. A good connection and the writers are set for life. True, I've spoken many times before on the benefits of networking. The right connection can put you in the right place to advance your career, but here's the catch - you have to have the goods.

Kurtzman & Orci have the goods. John August has the goods. Mike Dougherty has the goods. Eric Heisserer has the goods. Josh Klausner has the goods. The Nolan brothers have the goods. Aaron Sorkin has the goods. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

And yes, I'm sure there are plenty of writers outside L.A. who are learning their craft and may have the goods too. But they are statistically insignificant if you really expect a revolution that will sweep out the current titans and usher in entirely fresh blood.

And hey, after all this, if you're still inclined to upload to Amazon Studios, clearly nothing I say will change your mind. Don't look down on those writers trying to tell you that this is a bad deal in terms of what a writer should make. In your paranoia, don't mistake their "voice of experience" for jealousy or fear.

If you decide that your creative output is worth no more than the table scraps that Amazon lets fall, then you not only denigrate your own value as an artist, you denigrate artists everywhere.

Reader question - Amazon Studios

Clint asks:

What is your take on the Amazon Studio project?

This is pretty much old news by this point, as seemingly every other blogger has had a chance to tackle this question. However, I recognize that some readers might not have seen those other bloggers or were just curious about my take on it.

And my take is: Skeptical. And suspicious. John August had a blog last week that nailed the factor that on its own would be a deal-breaker for me. Amazon's announcement said:

Amazon Studios invites filmmakers and screenwriters from all over the world to submit full-length movies and scripts, which will then get feedback from Amazon readers, who will be free to rewrite and amend. Based on reaction (“rate and review”) to stories, scripts and rough “test” films, a panel of judges will award monthly prizes.

And John asked this very, very significant question:

Do you really want random people rewriting your script?

Seriously, is anyone so desperate to "make it" as a writer that they'd bend over and take this affront? We're not talking about users giving the writer feedback which they are free to use or ignore as they see fit; we're talking about someone going in there and changing your words without consulting you.

Honestly, it would be like Project Wilson Phillips, but with a script that the original writer presumably put a lot of time and care into. Think about your most precious spec script. Think of the hours they spent laboring over every decision...

Now picture some jackass who reads it and decides that what this heartfelt tale of romance needs is more gore. Or a graphic anal sex scene. Or hell, what if the couple met at a neo-Nazi rally instead of a Starbucks? I'm sure that within a week, there'll be at least one script where the dialogue consists entirely of "Baba Booey!"

Do you really want your script treated with all the respect of the Wikipedia entry on "Joey Buttafuoco?"

Crowd-sourcing for creative ideas is an intensely dumb thing to initiate and it's even more useless to participate in. I've read scripts by the sorts of aspirings likely to participate in this. They suck. They have no original ideas, their dialogue is often hackneyed and atrocious and their plots make no sense.

I'm not attacking all aspirings, mind you. I'm just assuming that the better ones will have enough common sense to stay away from this.

I don't want to parse the legalese too much because I am not a lawyer. But it does give me pause to hand over a free option to a project for 18 months., and that can be pushed to a full three years for a mere $10,000. But look at how they word that:

Amazon Studios gets... with respect to your work:

•The exclusive right to buy it (and its associated rights) during the 18 month term of the option, for $200,000 plus other possible bonuses. We can extend this option another 18 months by paying you $10,000.

If you read that too fast, it looks like they're saying the option is $200,000. I'd like to think that wording isn't deliberately designed to confuse, but it does make one wonder.

If that's not enough of a deal breaker, their FAQ has another detail that might make some writers think twice:

So for 18 months after you create a project at Amazon Studios, you cannot display, sell or license your script or test movie elsewhere, or withdraw it for any reason. However, when the option term ends, if we haven't exercised our option and purchased your work, you will get back non-exclusive rights to your original material.

I also find this question and answer notable:

If I direct a winning test movie, and Amazon Studios makes a full budget theatrical film based on that project, do I get to direct that full-budget theatrical film?

Not necessarily. We hope to hire talent from Amazon Studios for any professional movies we make when we can but we want to be upfront that we can't guarantee this. Our priority will be to release the biggest and best movies possible with the cast and crew that promise the most commercial success.

So don't think this is the solution to all your Hollywood hopes and dreams.

And if that's not enough for you, check out Craig Mazan's take on the whole situation here.

Thanks for the question. Everyone else, feel free to keep 'em coming!